I can easily describe the mistake I make most often.If I am upset somewhere and prepared me for the conversation, I perform beforehand to prepare a whole redering in my head.That reasoning is logically structured, interlaced with examples where necessary and supported by a series of arguments. The attitude I am measuring is relatively empathic and I have in my head all the different slopes that can be worked out and provided with a very substantive answer. That’s what mental energy is all about….
In the thick of the battle, however, I do not walk through all these elements with my interlocutor as carefully as in my own head.The emotions get a little heated, the emotion sometimes turns between and then I tend to be far too fast and somewhat short by the bend my opinion to give out. In other words; I therefore do not need the other enough in my thinking framework.Or in my prior approach, which I had worked out in peace and stripped of emotional reactions. For the other of course, it becomes much more appealing for the other, too, to put their own opinion on the other, and then you run a bit of course in the long term.
Stick to the self-anger and do not want to listen or understand.
Polarization: biting themselves in their arguments, no more listening and more and more radical positions, until the bang possibly follows.
In my opinion, people often argue for banal matters.Often people do not even know later what the cause of the quarrel was right.
People in a quarrel, I think, tend to defend themselves and often look with their own glasses to the situation.It would be better to look at the situation as objectively as possible during such a moment and to be guided by your emotions less.
Quarrel in itself is not bad.You may not always agree with the other and stand up for yourself and your opinion is important. What is important is that after the quarrel you will make it back and that you see it as a learning moment. Why did we argue? What have I learned from it? How can we avoid the same quarrel in the future etc. That’s what I call: Constructive quarrel. Although I have to admit that sometimes it may be good to shout to your partner and then fly into each other’s arms. Romantic right?
-Not interested in someone else’s version of the story/no more listening/making assumptions about what the other wants to say
-Don’t let people pronounce
-Measuring with two sizes (getting angry about something that is also guilty of themselves)
Making a mosquito an elephant
You ask for errors, but it usually starts with one error.Stop listening. If the other does not feel understood, the other does not bother to understand you. Try to show your interlocutor’s argument as sincere and correct as possible, and only respond with questions if your interlocutor tells you that you have understood him/her.